From: | Adelino Silva <adelino(dot)j(dot)silva(at)googlemail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WAL archive (archive_mode = always) ? |
Date: | 2018-10-22 09:06:12 |
Message-ID: | CAGXy7aXgDYuxJ0sgk47rbE3hc2-_WYbzVCPJm2a8zKNJVEu-Jg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Takayuki,
Sorry can you explain how we can same network bandwidth by not sending the
WAL archive from the primary to the standby(s).
I possible scenario is have to multiple standby servers in same host for
same master. or other scenarios exists ?
Many thanks in advance,
Adelino.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 1:47 AM Tsunakawa, Takayuki <
tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> From: Adelino Silva [mailto:adelino(dot)j(dot)silva(at)googlemail(dot)com]
> > What is the advantage to use archive_mode = always in a slave server
> compared
> > to archive_mode = on (shared WAL archive) ?
> >
> > I only see duplication of Wal files, what is the purpose of this feature
> ?
>
> This also saves you the network bandwidth by not sending the WAL archive
> from the primary to the standby(s). The network bandwidth can be costly
> between remote regions for disaster recovery.
>
>
> Regards
> Takayuki Tsunakawa
>
>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2018-10-22 09:45:30 | Re: Function to promote standby servers |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2018-10-22 09:04:34 | Re: Function to promote standby servers |